the 'livestock revolution' rhetoric and realitythe ‘livestock revolution’: rhetoric...

Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative A Living from Livestock

Research Report

1

RR Nr. 09-05; November 2009

The ‘Livestock Revolution’: Rhetoric and Reality

U. Pica-Ciamarra, and J. Otte*

Abstract

Since the term ‘Livestock Revolution’ was coined in an influential 1999 IFPRI publication,

insinuating an analogy to the ‘Green Revolution’, it has become a dominant ‘paradigm’ in the

narratives of development practitioners and policymakers engaged in the livestock and related

sectors. The basic tenet of the ‘Livestock Revolution’ paradigm is that the combination of

population growth, rising per capita incomes, and progressive urbanization are creating an

unprecedented growth in demand for food of animal origin in developing countries, giving rise to

major opportunities and threats for mankind. This global picture dominates the policy debate

without due regard to regional and national specificities. This Research Report presents an

explorative cross-country analysis of trends in consumption of animal source food in 88

developing countries over the period 1980-2003. Following the falsifiability criterion proposed by

Karl Popper, the Report makes some falsifiable statements about the Livestock Revolution, and

then looks for possible conflicting evidence at regional and country level. Both a macro- and a

micro-perspective, focusing on country total and per capita consumption of animal source food,

provides evidence that the Livestock Revolution has been, at least so far, a very circumscribed

phenomenon affecting only few countries and some livestock commodities. However, given that

a number of highly populated developing countries are fast-growing economies (including China,

India, Indonesia and Brazil), a large share of the world’s population lives in countries which are

recording remarkable increases in the consumption of animal source food. The question

remains, whether the term Livestock Revolution is appropriate to represent trends which have

hitherto involved only a minority of developing countries.

* We thank Jelle Bruinsma (FAO), Lawrence C. Tawah (AfDB) and Bouchaib Boulanouar (AfDB) for detailed and constructivecomments.

PPLPI Research Report

2

1. Introduction

The growing demand for food of animal origin (in the following termed animal source food, ASF)

in developing countries, caused by the combination of population growth, rising per capita

incomes, progressive urbanization, as well as other factors, has been dubbed ‘The Livestock

Revolution’ (Delgado et al., 1999). This trend is anticipated to continue well into the next

decades and to severely impact on livestock and crop production systems, the environment,

public health, trade flows and, more broadly, on the world food economy. The views have been

expressed, that about half a billion of the world’s ‘extreme’ poor, who depend on livestock for part

of their livelihoods, may potentially benefit from the expanding market for ASF (Brown, 2003;

Catley, 2008; Delgado, 2003; ILRI, 2008), and that an unregulated growth of the livestock sector

may generate significant negative externalities, both on the environment and public health

(Barrett, 2001; FAO, 2006a; World Bank, 2005; World Bank, 2009a).

Figure 1: Total and per capita consumption of meat, milk and eggs in developing and developed countries, 1980 and 2003

Developing countries

million tonnes

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Meat Milk Eggs Cereals

1980

2003

+ 207%

+ 114%

+ 349%

+ 52%

kg per capita

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


1980

2003

+ 100%

+ 41%

+ 250%

+ 0%

Developed countries

million tonnes

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


1980

2003

+ 21%

+ 18%

+ 4%

+ 14%

kg per capita

0

50

100

150

200

250


1980

2003

+ 7%

+ 4%

‐ 8%

+ 1%


3

The global figures on consumption growth of ASF are indeed impressive: based on FAOSTAT

(2009) data, between 1980 and 2003, the consumption of meat in developing countries

increased from 47 to 143 million tonnes, that of milk from 112 to 239 million tonnes and that of

eggs from 8 to 37 million tonnes; in per capita terms, annual meat consumption doubled from 14

to 28 kg, the consumption of milk increased from 34 to 48 litres and that of eggs from 2 to 7 kg.1

Over the same period, the overall demand for cereal-based food in developing countries has

increased from 510 to 775 million tons (that for feed from 113 to 241 million tons) while per capita

consumption of cereals has remained more or less constant, at about 156 kg/year. The gap in

consumption of ASF between developing and developed countries is thus narrowing (but still

remains substantial), because the latter have recorded only marginal changes in the per capita

consumption of ASF between 1980 and 2003 (see Figure 1 below and Table 1a in the appendix,

which also includes a list of developing and developed countries).

Regional and country-specific trends in the demand for ASF are of course varied, notably faster

growth being recorded in transforming and urbanized economies in Asia and Latin America than

in agriculture-based sub-Saharan Africa (Delgado et al., 1999; Dijkman, 2009). However, due to

the scarcity of systematic cross-country analyses of trends in consumption of ASF in developing

countries, global figures tend to dominate the development discourse2 – despite Delgado et al.

(1999) clearly stating that the Livestock Revolution is a geographically confined phenomenon.

This Research Report draws on the concept of falsifiability proposed by Karl Popper to

investigate whether the confidence, which development practitioners and policymakers place in

the basic tenets of the ‘Livestock Revolution’, is supported not only by global aggregate trends,

but also by regional and country level evidence. Although the global picture clearly matters, the

sound appreciation of national and regional developments in the demand and supply of ASF is

the first step to design livestock sector policies, which are context-specific, a prerequisite for

effectiveness.

1 Throughout the paper, aggregated figures for meat consumption include meat from both monograstics and ruminants, i.e. changes in the structure of the ‘meat basket’, wherein poultry meat is increasingly relevant, are not investigated 2 The literature abounds with resounding titles such as: “Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food revolution” (Delgado, 2003). “The Livestock Revolution – devouring the planet?” (New Agriculturalist, 2002). “The Livestock Revolution: a pathway from poverty?” (Brown, 2003). “How can Africa benefit from the Livestock Revolution?” (Babagana, 2008). “Managing the Livestock Revolution – policy and technology to address the negative impact of a fast-growing sector” (World Bank, 2005). “Responding to the Livestock Revolution - the case for livestock public policies” (FAO, 2005). “The Livestock Revolution – a global veterinary mission” (Steinfeld, 2004). “Responding to the Livestock Revolution. The role of globalisation and implications for poverty alleviation” (Owen et al., 2004).


4

2. Methodology

In ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’, Karl Popper (1959) argued that theories and statements, in

order to be ranked as scientific (and be relied upon by policymakers), must not only be supported

by empirical evidence but must also be subjected to the test of falsifiability. In other words,

inductive approaches, which draw general conclusions from a particular body of evidence, should

not be substantiated by looking for additional evidence that confirms the conclusion or theory but

by searching for possible conflicting evidence that, if found, would force rejection or modification

of the conclusion / theory.3 Of course, Popper explicitly recognizes that a single counter-instance

is not sufficient to falsify a theory, but he also warns that “there are fashions in science, and

some scientists climb on the band wagon almost as readily as do some painters and musicians.

But although fashions and band wagons may attract the weak, they should be resisted rather

than encouraged” (Popper, 1979, pp.215-216).

Following Pooper’s rationale, we formulate four assertions on the trends in total and per capita

consumption of ASF in developing countries, derived from three influential publications on the

Livestock Revolution: the IFPRI discussion paper by Delgado et al. (1999), who first theorized

the Livestock Revolution; the 1999 ILRI Annual Report, which looks at the poverty dimensions of

the Livestock Revolution (ILRI, 2000); and a 2001 World Bank Report on livestock sector

development, which discusses the social, environmental and health repercussions of the

Livestock Revolution (de Haan et al., 2001). We then test whether these assertions can be

proved false by empirical evidence. The evidence is derived from FAOSTAT country food

consumption data for the period 1980 to 2003.4 The analysis is confined to this period of about

two decades to focus on the ‘Revolution’ – which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “an

instance of great change or alteration in affairs” – and not on the long term evolution in food

consumption patterns, and 2003 is the last year for which consolidated consumption data are

available. Countries with a population of less than 1 million people in 2003, those with fewer

than 15 data points, as well as some Middle East oil-exporting countries (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia

and the United Arab Emirates) and South Korea – which are currently classified as high-income

countries by the World Bank – were excluded from the sample dataset, which consists of 88

developing countries (out of 126 in FAOSTAT), accounting for about 96 percent of the population

in the developing world.

3 In the psychological literature, the unconscious and unintentional tendency to search for information and evidence which confirm one’s expectations and hypotheses is termed confirmation or confirmatory bias (Raymond, 1998). 4 http://faostat.fao.org


5

3. Falsifiability Tests for the Livestock Revolution in Developing Countries

The Role of Income Growth and Urbanization There is no question that “population growth, urbanization, and income growth in developing

countries are fuelling a massive global increase in demand for food of animal origin” (Delgado et

al., 1999, p.1)5, as well as of cereals, fruits, vegetables, water and other food and non-food

commodities. It is difficult to exactly quantify the contribution of each single factor to the growing

demand for livestock products. For instance, there are different ways to calculate the

responsiveness of food consumption to increased income / expenditure (the income /

expenditure elasticity of demand), and it is all but clear how to quantify the overall contribution of

urbanization to changing food consumption patterns.6 However, the contribution of population

growth to total changes in the consumption for ASF can be estimated by comparing the actual

demand for livestock products with today’s theoretical demand at base-period per capita

consumption. The expectation is that a ‘Revolution’ will be only marginally accounted for by

human population growth, which in the sample countries averaged 2.4 percent per year in 1980-

2003 and has rarely exceeded 3 percent per year. We thus formulate the following assertion:

Assertion one: Urbanization, and income growth are fuelling a massive increase in demand for ASF in developing countries

Figure 2 presents the proportional contribution of population growth to the increase in meat and

milk consumption in 88 developing countries over the period 1980-2003, as well as some basic

statistics.7

5 “The forces fuelling the Revolution – income growth, urbanisation and population growth – show no signs of abating” (ILRI, 2000, p.4). “The growing, increasingly urban, and more affluent population in the developing world will most likely demand a richer, more diverse diet, with more meat and milk products” (de Haan et al., 2001, p.1). 6 A Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation on “Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases” (WHO, 2003) notes that urbanization distances people from primary food production. The urban poor may thus have a less varied and nutritious diet than their rural counterpart, whereas better-off urban households can access the wider variety of foods which are available in urban markets. 7 The proportional contribution of population growth to the total increase in consumption of livestock products is rounded down to 100% in cases demographic changes are estimated to account for more than 100% of the changed consumption in ASF. This may happen, for instance, when countries record a decrease in per capita consumption of ASF or because of flawed data.


6

Figure 2: Increases (%) in total consumption (quantity) of meat and milk explained by population growth in 88 developing countries over the period 1980-2003

meat

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

countries ordered according to % increase in meat consumptionexplained by population growth in 1980‐2003

lowest highest

Observations: 88Mean: 76.9 %Median: 80.8 %Max: 100.0 %Min: 19.3 %Std. Dev. 22.5

China

Brazil

India

milk

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

countries ordered according to % increase in milk consumption explained by population growth in 1980‐2003

lowest highest

Observations: 88Mean: 85.9 %Median: 100.0 %Max: 100.0 %Min: 10.5 %Std. Dev. 20.6

Brazil

India

China

On average, population growth explains about 77 and 86 percent of the increase in consumption

of meat and milk in developing countries over the period 1980 to 2003. Gains in real per capita

income, urbanization and other factors, therefore, appear not the major elements underpinning

the current trends in the demand for animal food in the ‘average’ developing country. With the

exception of China, even in fast-growing and highly populated countries, such as Brazil, India or

Indonesia, population growth ‘explains’ more than half of the increase in demand for meat and


7

milk.8 This demand growth is largely for wet and (relatively) low-processed ASF (despite the

‘Supermarket Revolution’), and will remain so for years to come, because of the relatively low per

capita incomes in developing countries (almost 50 percent of the population in developing

countries lives on <$2 PPP/day) coupled with unequal distribution of wealth (particularly in Brazil

and China9) (Otte et al., 2008; World Bank, 2009b).

Overall, the assertion that “urbanization, and income growth in developing countries are fuelling a

massive global increase in demand for food of animal origin” appears not to hold true for the

majority of developing countries, the main driver behind growing demand for ASF in most

countries being population growth. Income growth and urbanization are major determinants for

increasing demand for meat and milk in a limited, but in some instances highly populated and

rapidly growing economies.

The Role of Changing Diets

“Put simply, the Livestock Revolution is a fundamental change in the way people eat. As their

incomes rise, people diversify their diets, giving up traditional staple cereals in favour of more

milk, meat, fish and eggs” (ILRI, 2000, p.3).10 There is evidence that, over the last decades,

population growth in developing countries has resulted in sustained increases in the global

consumption of ASF. There is less evidence of significant changes in human diets (de Oliveira,

1997; Pingali, 2007), which is a major factor underpinning of the Livestock Revolution. It is, in

fact, because of the growing (relative) relevance of ASF in human diets – and hence of the

livestock sector in agriculture – that the livestock sector could present larger market and

business opportunities as well as environmental and public health risks and threats for society

than other sectors of agriculture. We thus formulate the following assertion:

Assertion two: People in developing countries have fundamentally changed their diets

Table 2a in the appendix presents the relative contribution of meat and milk to the national food

basket in 88 developing countries in 1980 and 2003. Figure 3 below displays the proportional

contribution of different food items (including cereals, roots and tubers, fruits and vegetables,

meat, and milk) to the national food basket for the different developing regions in 1980 and in

2003.11

8 In 2003, Brazil had an estimated population of 182 million; China 1.3 billion; India, 1.1 billion; Indonesia, 214 million. 9 The Gini coefficient of income inequality – which ranges from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfect inequality) – in 2005 was 0.37 in India, 0.39 in Indonesia, 0.42 in China and 0.56 in Brazil (www.worldbank.org/data). 10 “The structural shift in developing-country diets toward animal proteins is a given that must be dealt with” (Delgado et al.,1999, p.3). “... changing consumer perspectives are likely to be major driving forces in the global livestock sector during the next two decades” (de Haan et al., p.1). 11 There are no differences in the composition of the food basket at national and per capita level, as FAOSTAT per capita consumption data are built by dividing total national consumption by population, i.e. per capita figures are derived from national


8

Figure 3: Proportional contribution of selected food groups to the national food basket by major developing country region, 1980 and 2003

Sub‐Saharan Africa

41 %37 %

16 %15 %

30 %33 %

4 %4 %9 %10 %

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1980 2003

Milk

Meat

Fruits & Veg.

Roots & Tubers

Cereals

Middle East and North Africa

38 % 36 %

1 % 2 %

41 % 45 %

3 % 4 %17 % 14 %

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1980 2003

Milk

Meat

Fruits & Veg.

Roots & Tubers

Cereals

South Asia

55 % 48 %

2 %2 %

26 %28 %

2 %2 %

16 % 21 %

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1980 2003

Milk

Meat

Fruits & Veg.

Roots & Tubers

Cereals

East and Southeast Asia

363 %

32 %

8 %

23 %

52 %

5 % 9 %2 % 3 %

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1980 2003

Milk

Meat

Fruits & Veg.

Roots & Tubers

Cereals

At regional level, consumers are showing the

largest shifts in preference towards ASF in

South Asia (milk) and East and Southeast Asia

(meat), where a large majority of countries have

recorded structural changes in food

consumption patterns (Table 2a). In East and

Southeast Asia the largest consumption shift

was seen for fruits and vegetables, rising from

23 to 52 percent of the food basket (by weight) – a little publicized ‘fruit and vegetable revolution’.

No significant changes in food habits can however be detected in Latin America, Middle East and

North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa, where country-level data indicate wide within-region

heterogeneity: for instance, meat and milk only accounted for a larger share of the food

consumption basket in 2003 than in 1980 in 15 out of the 39 countries (≈ 38%) in the sub-

Saharan African sub-sample and in 10 out of 22 countries (≈ 45%) in the Latin American sub-

sample (Table 2a).

aggregates and not from household surveys or other sources of data, which take into consideration other variables influencing the size and variety of the food basket, such as per capita income and household composition.

Latin America

30 % 28 %

4 % 3 %

32 % 33 %

10 % 13 %

24 % 23 %

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1980 2003

Milk

Meat

Fruits & Veg.

Roots & Tubers

Cereals


9

Given the large between-region and between-country differences, it appears misleading to

generically state that people in the developing world are significantly changing their diets. Similar

differences are likely to exist between rural / urban areas and income strata within-countries.

The Pace of Change Changes in the demand for animal foods offer “one of the few rapidly growing markets that poor

rural people can join even if they lack substantial amounts of land, training and capital” (ILRI,

2000, p. 9) and present “crucially important policy dilemmas that must be resolved for the well-

being of both rural and urban people in developing countries”12 (Delgado et al., 1999, p.4).

Indeed, a rapid growth of the demand for ASF generates opportunities and challenges (which are

independent of any shift in food consumption patterns), although it remains undefined what is

meant by a “rapid demand growth ... which propels the Livestock Revolution” (Delgado et al.,

1999, p.59). Presumably, it is a growth rate which is considerably higher than the rate of

population growth – which only ensures a ‘Revolution’ – thereby implying major growth in the per

capita consumption of ASF. We thus formulate the following assertion:

Assertion three: Per capita consumption of ASF has increased rapidly (>2% per annum13) in developing countries

Table 1 and 2 display the least squares annual growth rates in per capita meat and milk

consumption in major developing regions over the period 1980-2003, and group countries into

three categories: negative growth of per capita consumption over the period, growth in the 0-2

percent range or growth above 2 percent per annum (see Table 3a in the appendix for individual

country-level growth rates).

Over the period 1980 to 2003, trends in per capita meat and milk consumption have been

positive in a total of 54 and 47 countries respectively, i.e. 61 and 53 percent of the countries in

the sample, and negative in the remaining countries. Across countries, annual national growth of

per capita consumption of meat averaged 0.93 percent and that of milk -0.14 percent, which turn

into 3.72 and 1.57 percent respectively if population size is factored in. The median consumer

has increased his/her intake of meat and milk by 0.76 and 0.09 percent per year.

12 “The global livestock sector is changing fast” (de Haan et al., 2001, p. vii). “We call it a revolution to draw people’s attention to the fact that the change is happening rapidly and on a massive scale” (ILRI, 2000, p. 3). 13 The threshold of 2 percent is arbitrary and possibly conservative, considering that ,over the period 1980-2003, in the sample countries per capita consumption of meat and milk increased by 4 and 2 percent per year respectively. Note also that, in a seminal paper on ‘growth accelerations’, Hausmann et al. (2005) consider that a country’s growth rate is rapid when GDP per capita grows at 3 percent per year as a minimum. In particular, they define growth acceleration as an increase in GDP per capita of 2 percentage points or more, which is followed by a post-acceleration growth rate of at least 3.5 percent per annum in the following eight years.


10

Table 1: Annual growth rate in per capita meat consumption by developing regions, 1980 – 2003

Annual per capita growth rate

No. of countries with per capita meat consumption

annual growth rate Region

No. of countries Cross-

country mean

Pop. weighted

mean Median < 0% 0% - 2% > 2%

SSA 39 0.09 -0.44 -0.24 22 14 3 MENA 11 0.69 0.93 0.99 4 4 3 SA 5 1.90 1.69 1.57 0 3 2 ESEA 11 2.52 6.18 3.25 2 2 7 LA 22 1.51 3.71 1.46 6 7 9

All 88 0.93 3.72 0.76 34 30 24

Table 2: Annual growth rate in per capita milk consumption by developing regions, 1980 – 2003

Annual per capita growth rate

No. of countries with per capita milk consumption

annual growth rate Region


country mean

Pop. weighted

mean Median < 0% 0% - 2% > 2%

SSA 39 -1.46 -0.63 -0.77 24 14 1 MENA 11 -0.47 -0.77 -0.53 6 5 0 SA 5 1.23 2.23 1.26 1 2 2 ESEA 11 3.80 5.43 2.82 0 5 6 LA 22 0.09 0.77 0.17 10 9 3

All 88 -0.14 1.57 0.09 41 35 12

With the exception of East and Southeast Asia these average rates of growth do not appear

‘rapid’, and ‘rapid’ growth (>2% per annum) for meat and milk was only recorded in 24 and 12 of

the 88 countries respectively. However, given that China and (in part) India as well as Indonesia

and Brazil – which together account for almost 60 percent of the population in the developing

world – are growing fast and witnessing rapid per capita increases in the consumption of

livestock products (Table 3a), a large share of world’s population lives in countries in which the

per capita consumption of meat and milk is recording remarkable growth rates.

As overall only a limited proportion of developing countries have been recording a ‘fast’ growth in

the consumption of ASF it would be accurate to say that “some regions and countries have

witnessed extraordinarily rapid growth in consumption and production [of meat and dairy

products], while others have fared less well and still others downright badly” (ILRI, 2000, p. 5).


11

Industrialized Countries and the ‘Hotspots’ of the Livestock Revolution Given that, over the period 1980-2003, in a ‘typical’ developing country (i) population growth

explains a large share of the change in consumption of meat and milk; (ii) there is limited change

in overall food consumption patterns; (iii) per capita consumption of ASF is not generally

increasing rapidly, the question arises of how much per capita consumption of ASF – which,

ceteris paribus, is possibly the simplest proxy for the Livestock Revolution – has grown in

developing countries. In effect, opportunities and threats associated with the Livestock

Revolution are ultimately linked to the quantity of additional meat and milk which have been (will

be) effectively produced and consumed and produced, and not to growth rates per se. Since the

Livestock Revolution is allegedly unfolding in developing countries, the demand for ASF in

developed countries is only marginally growing, and the consumption gap between developing

and developed countries can only narrow when absolute increases in per capita consumption of

ASF are larger in the former than in the latter, we formulate the fourth assertion as follows:

Assertion four: Absolute changes in per capita consumption of ASF have been larger in the vast majority (>75%) of developing countries than in industrialised countries14

Figure 4 below depicts population-weighed trends in per capita consumption of meat and milk in

industrialised countries and in five major developing regions, including sub-Saharan Africa, the

Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, East and Southeast Asia, and Latin America.15

Figure 4: Per capita consumption of meat and milk in industrialised countries and the developing world, 1980-2003

Meat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Kg per capita

/ year

Sub‐Saharan AfricaMiddle East & North AfricaSouth AsiaEast & South East AsiaLatin AmericaIndustrial ised countries

Milk

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Lt per capita

/ year

Sub‐Saharan AfricaMiddle East & North AfricaSouth AsiaEast & South East AsiaLatin AmericaIndustrialised countries

14 Comparison is with the so-called industrialised countries and not with all developed countries because of significant data gaps in the latter group, mainly due to missing data for the 15 independent States that split off from the former Soviet Union. See table 1a for a list of developed countries. Industrialised countries include: Australia, Austria, Belgium-Luxembourg, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America. 15 Eggs are excluded from the analysis because FAOSTAT data include only kg consumed per year. Given that one egg weighs between 40 to 70 g, the data can only show very dramatic changes in annual per capita egg consumption.


12

The figure provides evidence that, in the last two decades, industrialised countries have recorded

small but steady increases in the per capita consumption of both meat and dairy products, and

reveals three other major trends: (i) in South Asia there has been an unambiguous rise in the per

capita consumption of milk – but hardly any rise in per capita meat consumption; (ii) the Middle

East and North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa display stagnant per capita consumption of both

meat and milk, at least over the period 1980 to 2003; (iii) in Latin America and East and

Southeast Asia there has been a significant increase in the per capita consumption of meat – but

much less so for milk.

Regional trends, however, conceal significant differences within regions (see table 3a in the

appendix). Tables 3 and 4 display the annual absolute changes in the per capita consumption of

meat and milk in developing and industrialized countries between 2001-2003 and 1980-1982,

and group countries by changes in consumption level: negative, in the 0-0.5 kg / lit range, or

bigger than 0.5 kg / lit.

Table 3: Changes in annual per capita meat consumption (kg) in developing regions and industrialised countries, 1980-82 – 2001-03

Annual per capita change in meat consumption (kg)

No. of countries with changes in per capita meat

consumption Region


country mean

Pop. weighted

mean Median < 0 kg 0–0.5 kg >0.5 kg

SSA 39 0.04 -0.04 -0.01 20 17 2 MENA 11 0.10 0.17 0.17 3 8 0 SA 5 0.08 0.07 0.07 0 5 0 ESEA 11 0.40 1.19 0.32 2 5 4 LA 22 0.32 0.80 0.40 6 8 8

All 88 0.16 0.56 0.08 31 43 14

Industr. countries 25 0.55 0.51 0.47 3 10 12


13

Table 4: Changes in annual per capita milk consumption (lit) by developing regions and industrialised countries, 1980-82 – 2001-03

Annual per capita change in milk consumption (lit)

No. of countries with changes in per capita milk

consumption Region


country mean

Pop. weighted

mean Median < 0 lit 0–0.5 lit >0.5 lit

SSA 39 -0.08 -0.12 -0.10 22 11 6 MENA 11 -0.20 -0.38 -0.43 6 2 3 SA 5 0.76 1.05 0.40 1 2 2 ESEA 11 0.31 0.36 0.14 0 9 2 LA 22 -0.04 0.46 0.01 11 1 10

All 88 0.01 0.52 0.02 40 25 23

Industr. countries 25 0.21 0.63 0.23 10 5 10

Over the period 1980 to 2003, absolute changes in the yearly per capita consumption of ASF

have not been impressive (this is hardly surprising, given small growth rates in per capita

consumption), despite some countries having performed remarkably well. Across the sample of

developing countries, the median consumer has increased his/her annual consumption of meat

and milk by 80 grams and by 20 millilitres respectively while the ‘average’ increase in meat and

milk consumption amounted to 560 grams and 520 millilitres. Ultimately, for the median

consumer, over a year, these increases amount to one small piece of meat accompanied by a

sip of milk. This is less than the corresponding per capita increase in consumption of ASF in

industrialised countries. Overall, changes in the per capita consumption of meat and milk have

been larger only in a minority of developing countries than in industrialised countries, namely in

38 and 33 developing countries respectively, i.e. 43 and 38 percent of the sample. Again, this

highlights that population growth is the major determinant of the expansion of the demand for

ASF in the developing world.

Given the heterogeneity within and between regions, it seems misleading to state that a

‘Livestock Revolution’ – as measured by absolute changes in per capita consumption of ASF – is

indiscriminately occurring in the developing world, and differentiations should be made by

commodity and region, if not even by country.


14

4. Conclusions

A massive increase in the consumption of ASF is occurring in the developing world and is

expected to continue well into the next decades, because of population growth, as well as gains

in real per capita income, urbanization and other factors. According to FAO (2006b), in 2050 per

capita consumption of meat and milk in developing countries will be at 44 kg and 78 lit per year,

up from 28 kg and 48 lit in 2003. In the long term, however, if the consumption patterns in

industrialized countries are an indication of where the developing world is heading, per capita

consumption of meat and milk in developing countries should grow from about 28-48 to 80-200

kg / lit per year (Table 1a in the appendix). These changes in food consumption patterns would

have tremendous effects on the livestock sector and on agriculture as a whole.

Delgado et al. (1999) were the first to call attention to the opportunities and threats associated

with the increased demand for ASF in developing countries, which they dubbed the ‘Livestock

Revolution’. However, although they clearly pointed at geographical and country differences in

trends in the consumption of animal food in their paper, the current policy debate is largely

dominated by the global figures.

This Research Report presented a systematic explorative cross-country analysis of trends in

consumption of ASF in 88 developing countries over the period 1980 to 2003. Following the

falsifiability criterion proposed by Karl Popper, we formulated four statements on the Livestock

Revolution, and subsequently searched for possible conflicting evidence at regional and country

level. Both a macro and a micro perspective – looking at country total and per capita changes in

the consumption of ASF – suggest the Livestock Revolution has been, at least so far, a

circumscribed phenomenon affecting a relatively small number of developing countries and that

the global increase in the consumption of ASF is associated more with overall demographic

trends than with changing food habits. (However, given that some highly populated developing

countries are fast-growing – including China, India, Indonesia and Brazil – a large share of the

world’s population lives in countries which are recording notable shifts in food consumption

patterns.) It follows that, ceteris paribus, there are currently not necessarily (relatively) larger

global development opportunities and threats associated with the livestock sector than with other

productive sectors, and that, given its regional and national specificities, the livestock sector

development policy discourse needs to be linked to national and regional rather than to global

trends.

The question remains, whether the term ‘Livestock Revolution’ is appropriate to represent trends

which, at least so far, are to a large extent due to population growth and by-pass a large

proportion of the developing world: “... world per capita meat consumption appears at first glance

to have risen more slowly than the term ‘revolution’ would imply” (Rosegrant et al., 2001, p.12).


15

Of course, in the years to come a veritable Livestock Revolution may possibly unfold, but

policymakers and development practitioners should be cautious about generalizing global data

and devise policies and strategies without first detailed country scrutiny and analyses, because

livestock sector policies which (exclusively) build on a presumed existence of a fast growing

demand for ASF are destined not to go far in supporting growth and poverty reduction in the

majority of developing countries. In fact, the dominance of the paradigm of demand-led livestock

sector development stands in the way of identifying where the potential exists for supply-driven

livestock sector growth to act as important stimulus for rural development and poverty reduction.

The latter often still is the case in agriculture-based economies, in which poverty is highest.

5. References

Babagana A. (2008) How can Africa benefit from the Livestock Revolution? Opening speech at the ‘Veterinary Science, Transboundary Animal Disease and Market Access” STEPS Centre Workshop, Pretoria, South Africa.

Barrett J. R. (2001) Livestock Farming: Eating up the Environment? Environmental Health Perspective, 109 (7): A312-A317.

Brown A.G. (ed.) (2003) The livestock revolution: a pathway from poverty? Proceedings of a conference held at the ATSE Crawford Fund, Parliament House, Canberra. ATSE Crawford Fund.

Catley A. (2008) The growing demand for livestock. Will policy and institutional changes benefit poor people? ID21 Insights, 72: 1-2.

Delgado C. (2003) Rising Consumption of Meat and Milk in Developing Countries Has Created a New Food Revolution. Journal of Nutrition, 133 (11): 3907S-3910S.

Delgado C., Rosegrant M., Steinfeld H., Ehui S., Courboi, C. (1999) Livestock to 2020 – The Next Food Revolution. Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28. IFPRI, Washington D.C.

de Haan C., van Veen T.S., Brandenburg B., Gauthier J., Le Gall F., Mearns R., Siméon M. (2001) Livestock Development. Implications for Rural Poverty, the Environment, and Global Food Security. World Bank, Washington D.C.

de Oliveira S.P. (1997) Changes in food consumption in Brazil. Archivos latinoamericanos de nutricion, 47(2): 22-24.

Dijkman J. (2009) Innovation Capacity and the Elusive Livestock Revolution. LINK News Bulletin, October 2009. LINK, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht.

FAO (2005) Responding to the Livestock Revolution: the case for livestock public policies. Livestock Policy Brief 01, FAO, Rome.

FAO (2006a) Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome.

FAO (2006b) World agriculture towards 2030/2050. Interim Report. FAO, Rome.


16

Hausmann R., Pritchett L., Rodrik D. (2005) Growth Accelerations. Journal of Economic Growth, 10 (4): 303-329.

ILRI (2008) ILRI Annual Report 2007 – Markets that Work. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi.

ILRI (2000) ILRI Annual Report 1999 – Making the Livestock Revolution Work for the Poor. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi.

New Agriculturalist (2002) The livestock revolution – devouring the planet? New Agriculturalist 02/2002.

Otte J., Pica-Ciamarra U., Franceschini G., Roland-Holst D. (2008) Food Markets and Poverty Alleviation. PPLPI Research Report No. 8-11. FAO, Rome.

Owen E., Smith T., Steele M.A., Anderson S., Duncan A.J., Herrero M., Leaver J.D., Richards J.I., Ku-Vera J.K. (eds.) (2004) Responding to the Livestock Revolution: The Role of Globalisation and Implications for Poverty Alleviation/ Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.

Pingali P. (2007) Westernization of Asian Diets and the Transformation of Food Systems: Implications for Research and Policy. Food Policy, 32(3): 281-298.

Popper K. R. (1979) Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Revised Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Popper K.R. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London. Translation of Logik der Forschung (1935). Julius Springer Verlag, Wien.

Raymond N.S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2): 175-220.

Rosegrant M.W., Paisner M.S., Meijer S., Witcover J. (2001) Global Food Projections to 2020. Emerging Trends and Alternative Futures. IFPRI, Washington D.C.

Steinfeld, H. (2004) The livestock revolution – a global veterinary mission. Veterinary Parasitology, 125(1-2): 19-41.

WHO (2003) Diets, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. WHO Technical Report Series 916. Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. WHO, Geneva.

World Bank (2005) Managing the Livestock Revolution Policy and Technology to Address the Negative Impacts of a Fast-Growing Sector. Report No. 32735-GBL. World Bank, Washington D.C.

World Bank (2009a) Minding the Stock: Bringing Public Policy to Bear on Livestock Sector Development. Report No. 44010-GLB, World Bank, Washington D.C.

World Bank (2009b) Global Economic Prospects 2009. World Bank, Washington D.C.


17

6. Disclaimer & Contacts

PPLPI Research Reports have not been subject to independent peer review and constitute views of the authors only. For comments and / or additional information, please contact: Ugo Pica-Ciamarra Food and Agriculture Organization - Animal Production and Health Division Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy E-mail: [email protected]

Joachim Otte Food and Agriculture Organization - Animal Production and Health Division Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy E-mail: [email protected]

Or visit the PPLPI website at: www.fao.org/ag/pplpi.html


18

6. Appendix

Table 1a: Food consumption of livestock products and cereals in developing and developed countries, 1980 and 2003

Developing Countries* Developed Countries**

1980 2003 1980 2003

Population (million) 3,256,894 4,998,864 1,175,743 1,334,295

Total meat consumption (million tons)

46.6 143.2 88.3 106.7

Total milk consumption (million tons)

111.9 239.7 226.9 268.0

Total egg consumption (million tons)

8.3 37.3 16.4 17.0

Total cereal consumption (million tons)

510.0 775.0 152.4 174.3

Per capita meat consumption (kg / year)

14 28 75 80

Per capita milk consumption (lit / year)

34 48 193 201

Per capita egg consumption (kg / year)

2 7 13 12

Per capita cereal consumption (kg / year)

156 156 130 131

% of livestock products in food basket

14.8 19.7 46.0 45.8

meat 4.2 6.7 12.2 12.4 milk 9.9 11.2 31.5 31.3

eggs 0.7 1.7 2.3 1.9

* Developing countries: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China-Hong Kong, China-Macao, China, China-Province of Taiwan, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Congo Democratic Republic, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Domenica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran Islamic Republic, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea Democratic People's Republic, Korea Republic, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malati, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Occupied Palestinian Territori, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tanzania United Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. ** Developed countries: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latria, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan. Source: FAOSTAT (http://faostat.fao.org)


19

Table 2a: Contribution (%) of meat and milk to the national (or per capita) food basket (quantity), by major region and country; 1980 and 2003

Meat Milk Meat & Milk Regions / countries 1980 2003 1980 2003 1980 2003

Sub-Saharan Africa 4.3 3.9 10.4 9.3 14.7 13.2Angola 5.6 6.0 15.5 4.4 21.1 10.5Benin 4.8 6.2 3.0 3.2 7.8 9.5Botswana 5.2 7.3 36.5 28.7 41.7 36.0Burkina Faso 3.5 3.9 13.1 8.0 16.6 11.9Burundi 2.1 1.4 5.9 2.0 8.0 3.4Cameroon 3.9 4.7 5.1 4.6 9.0 9.3Cape Verde 2.5 7.8 16.0 20.5 18.5 28.2Cent. African Rep. 7.0 14.2 4.5 7.5 11.5 21.8Chad 6.5 6.6 15.9 12.4 22.1 19.0Congo 5.1 7.4 3.4 6.2 8.5 13.6Congo Dem. Rep 2.5 2.7 0.9 0.8 3.3 3.5Cote d’Ivoire 4.2 3.9 6.1 2.9 10.3 6.8Gabon 12.3 9.5 6.2 5.3 18.5 14.8Gambia 5.9 2.5 8.7 18.2 14.7 20.7Ghana 4.4 2.9 1.3 1.9 5.7 4.8Guinea 1.3 2.0 2.9 3.7 4.2 5.7Guinea-Bissau 6.4 5.7 7.9 6.4 14.3 12.2Kenya 5.7 4.4 21.1 29.0 26.7 33.4Lesotho 6.1 5.0 12.4 5.0 18.5 10.1Liberia 4.2 3.7 4.2 0.9 8.4 4.6Madagascar 6.4 5.7 14.1 11.1 20.5 16.8Malawi 1.8 1.9 3.3 1.7 5.1 3.6Mali 7.4 7.0 25.2 16.6 32.5 23.6Mauritania 9.6 9.1 49.2 37.7 58.8 46.7Mauritius 5.2 8.7 30.4 28.2 35.7 36.9Mozambique 2.8 2.3 4.0 1.9 6.8 4.2Namibia 14.1 12.3 18.9 22.7 33.0 35.1Niger 5.6 3.5 13.6 9.1 19.2 12.6Nigeria 4.1 2.4 5.8 2.4 9.9 4.8Rwanda 1.3 1.5 4.3 5.6 5.6 7.0Senegal 4.5 6.0 14.0 10.0 18.5 15.9Sierra Leone 2.2 2.7 7.5 3.5 9.6 6.2Sudan 6.9 5.5 34.6 38.8 41.5 44.3Swaziland 10.0 10.5 19.3 19.3 29.3 29.8Tanzania 3.0 3.8 7.3 9.8 10.3 13.6Togo 3.1 3.5 1.7 1.7 4.8 5.3Uganda 3.3 2.8 7.7 7.0 11.0 9.8Zambia 5.1 5.1 4.8 2.7 9.9 7.8Zimbabwe 4.4 8.3 18.6 9.8 21.1 18.1

Middle East & North Africa 3.1 3.6 16.5 13.6 19.5 17.2Algeria 2.8 3.7 20.9 21.0 23.8 24.7Egypt 2.8 3.5 8.5 10.3 11.3 13.8Iran 4.6 3.8 14.9 9.2 19.5 13.0Jordan 6.0 6.8 20.1 20.1 26.1 27.0Lebanon 7.2 7.7 21.7 16.4 28.9 24.0Libya 7.1 4.4 15.1 13.6 22.2 18.0Morocco 3.4 3.9 9.1 7.2 12.4 11.1Syria 2.8 4.5 12.5 18.5 15.3 22.9Tunisia 3.2 4.2 13.7 16.7 16.9 20.8Turkey 2.0 2.9 23.1 17.2 25.1 20.1Yemen 4.7 5.7 13.7 13.2 18.3 19.0

cont.


20

cont. Meat Milk Meat & Milk Regions / countries 1980 2003 1980 2003 1980 2003

South Asia 1.6 1.7 15.8 21.2 17.4 22.8Bangladesh 1.2 1.3 5.7 5.8 6.8 7.1India 1.4 1.5 14.8 19.8 16.2 21.3Nepal 3.4 2.9 16.7 12.0 20.1 14.9Pakistan 2.9 3.3 32.5 42.0 35.4 45.2Sri Lanka 1.1 2.5 8.7 13.4 9.9 15.9

East & S.East Asia 4.5 8.6 1.5 2.9 6.0 11.6Cambodia 1.6 6.2 3.0 1.4 4.6 7.5China 4.9 9.5 0.8 2.8 5.7 12.3Indonesia 1.9 3.3 3.1 2.6 5.0 5.9Korea, Dem. Rep. 3.8 2.6 0.8 1.0 4.7 3.6Laos 3.6 4.2 1.7 1.1 5.3 5.4Malaysia 7.7 14.1 14.0 12.8 21.7 26.9Mongolia 30.9 25.0 22.7 31.0 53.7 56.0Myanmar 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.4 6.6 7.7Philippines 4.4 8.3 5.3 5.1 9.7 13.4Thailand 5.0 8.4 2.1 8.0 7.2 16.3Viet Nam 3.5 8.2 0.6 2.6 4.1 10.8

Latin America 9.7 12.7 23.9 22.8 33.7 35.5Argentina 18.2 14.9 29.3 29.7 47.5 44.6Bolivia 11.7 13.4 12.4 9.0 24.0 22.5Brazil 10.6 17.3 22.3 25.0 32.9 42.3Chile 7.0 13.7 20.6 22.9 27.6 36.6Colombia 8.5 8.3 19.1 26.6 27.6 34.9Costa Rica 7.9 7.8 36.3 31.8 44.3 39.6Cuba 7.8 5.2 34.9 15.8 42.7 21.1Dominican Rep. 5.7 9.8 19.5 22.9 25.2 32.7Ecuador 4.2 10.4 17.3 22.7 21.5 33.1El Salvador 4.1 5.7 25.2 25.3 29.3 31.0Guatemala 4.5 7.3 17.2 12.3 21.7 19.6Haiti 3.6 6.0 5.2 5.4 8.8 11.4Honduras 4.4 7.2 23.4 27.1 27.7 34.3Jamaica 9.3 12.7 20.1 10.6 29.3 23.3Mexico 7.8 11.0 27.7 21.7 35.5 32.7Nicaragua 7.2 6.8 22.1 29.7 29.2 36.5Panama 13.4 15.8 26.3 19.9 39.7 35.7Paraguay 14.3 12.5 11.0 17.9 25.3 30.4Peru 5.2 6.4 22.5 13.7 27.7 20.1Trinidad & Tobago 8.8 10.1 29.5 28.3 38.4 38.3Uruguay 18.3 12.9 34.7 32.3 52.9 45.2Venezuela 9.4 12.9 29.8 19.7 39.2 32.5

All Dev.ing countries 4.5 6.7 11.0 11.4 15.5 18.1excl. China 4.3 5.1 15.1 16.3 19.5 21.4excl. India 5.2 7.9 10.1 9.5 15.3 17.3excl. China & India 5.4 6.6 15.3 14.8 20.6 21.4

* Depending on the region, between 1980 and 2003 eggs accounted for between 0.5 and 2.8 percent of the total food basket (tons). Source: FAOSTAT (http://faostat.fao.org)


21

Table 3a. Per capita consumption and least squares growth rate of per capita consumption of meat and milk in developing countries, 1980-82 to 2001-03 three year average

Per capita meat consumption (kg/year) Per capita milk consumption

(lit/year) Region / country

1980- 82

2001- 03

Annual growth rate 1980

- 82 2001 - 03

Annual growth rate

Sub-Saharan Africa

12* 11* -0.44* 30* 27* -0.63*

Angola 15 18 0.31 47 15 -5.95 Benin 12 17 0.83 7 11 1.90 Botswana 15 23 2.57 98 128 1.05 Burkina Faso 7 10 1.37 25 20 -0.77 Burundi 4 3 -1.65 14 4 -5.41 Cameroon 12 15 0.31 16 15 -0.80 Cape Verde 7 28 6.73 65 86 1.56 Cent. African Rep. 20 31 1.82 12 16 1.00 Chad 14 14 0.54 33 26 -1.24 Congo 13 15 0.67 7 13 1.62 Congo Dem. Rep. 6 4 -2.25 2 1 -3.66 Cote d’Ivoire 14 11 -1.51 21 7 -5.46 Gabon 55 42 -1.19 25 27 0.88 Gambia 9 5 -2.75 23 28 -0.42 Ghana 10 9 -0.65 2 7 2.95 Guinea 4 6 2.46 9 11 0.96 Guinea-Bissau 14 13 -0.39 17 14 -1.08 Kenya 16 14 -0.60 63 95 0.95 Lesotho 18 15 -1.48 41 15 -5.79 Liberia 12 7 -2.33 10 1 -10.56 Madagascar 22 15 -1.37 48 30 -2.09 Malawi 5 4 -0.41 9 4 -5.24 Mali 17 18 0.25 59 45 -0.69 Mauritania 31 32 -0.10 164 135 -1.26 Mauritius 14 38 5.09 90 117 1.16 Mozambique 5 5 -0.13 8 4 -3.23 Namibia 35 35 -0.33 55 71 0.99 Niger 17 11 -1.32 42 29 -1.53 Nigeria 11 8 -1.56 17 7 -4.18 Rwanda 5 4 -0.38 16 19 0.71 Senegal 12 17 1.79 37 25 -2.34 Sierra Leone 5 5 0.75 16 7 -3.25 Sudan 22 21 0.11 127 149 1.26 Swaziland 34 30 -0.51 60 63 0.57 Tanzania 9 9 -0.25 24 25 0.03 Togo 8 8 -0.99 4 4 -0.06 Uganda 11 11 0.17 26 24 -0.77 Zambia 13 11 -0.24 13 6 -2.76 Zimbabwe 13 15 0.11 52 19 -5.98

Middle East & North Africa 17* 21* 0.93* 88* 76* -0.77*

Algeria 12 18 2.01 89 114 0.69 Egypt 14 20 1.77 37 54 1.54 Iran 21 24 0.99 73 58 -1.69 Jordan 28 29 -0.36 74 63 -1.07

cont.


22

cont.

Per capita meat consumption (kg) Per capita milk consumption

(lit) Region / country

1980 - 82

2001 - 03


- 82 2001 - 03

Annual growth rate

Lebanon 38 50 1.08 115 116 0.15 Libya 49 28 -2.17 106 78 -2.29 Morocco 13 20 2.58 34 35 0.20 Syria 22 21 -0.22 100 87 -0.53 Tunisia 15 26 2.20 66 102 1.89 Turkey 14 19 0.77 161 110 -1.57 Yemen 15 14 -1.08 47 32 -2.93

South Asia 4* 6* 1.69* 42* 69* 2.23* Bangladesh 2 3 2.41 11 13 0.57 India 3 5 1.57 41 66 2.11 Nepal 9 10 0.44 42 40 -0.36 Pakistan 8 11 1.50 96 153 2.60 Sri Lanka 3 6 3.58 24 34 1.26

East & S.East Asia 13* 43* 6.18* 4* 13* 5.43* Cambodia 5 14 4.46 4 4 2.86 China 14 52 6.91 2 12 7.64 Indonesia 4 9 3.65 7 7 0.44 Korea, Dem. Rep. 14 10 -3.14 2 3 0.03 Laos 10 15 2.22 1 5 7.33 Malaysia 23 48 3.91 40 47 1.21 Mongolia 111 97 -0.35 73 108 2.82 Myanmar 7 10 0.76 11 14 0.51 Philippines 16 29 3.25 18 18 1.14 Thailand 19 27 1.90 7 22 6.14 Viet Nam 11 28 4.14 1 9 11.74

Latin America 40* 59* 2.20* 97* 107* 0.77* Argentina 104 85 -0.60 166 183 1.17 Bolivia 39 50 1.39 38 34 0.37 Brazil 40 79 4.10 80 115 2.00 Chile 33 67 4.42 92 110 1.77 Colombia 27 33 1.25 67 109 2.74 Costa Rica 28 42 1.79 130 167 1.30 Cuba 34 31 -1.53 160 94 -3.18 Dominican Rep. 22 37 3.12 84 67 -0.88 Ecuador 20 43 3.74 83 98 1.22 El Salvador 12 22 2.60 73 93 2.11 Guatemala 11 23 3.95 42 40 0.00 Haiti 11 15 1.34 17 15 -0.75 Honduras 14 24 3.61 73 100 1.98 Jamaica 38 56 2.18 80 48 -3.35 Mexico 39 58 1.90 120 114 -0.07 Nicaragua 20 17 -1.06 64 77 -0.16 Panama 44 54 1.12 70 67 -0.11 Paraguay 67 50 -0.41 50 64 2.16 Peru 15 21 1.52 62 49 -0.99 Trinidad & Tobago 45 37 -1.28 149 106 -2.47 Uruguay 91 73 -0.24 185 187 0.35 Venezuela 48 53 0.36 151 76 -3.13 cont.


23

cont.

Per capita meat consumption (kg) Per capita milk consumption

(lit) Region / country 1980

– 82 2001 - 03


- 82 2001 - 03

Annual growth rate

All Dev.ing countries

13* 28* 3.72* 33* 46* 1.57*

excl. China 13* 18* 1.65* 60* 71* 1.02* excl. India 16* 34* 3.87* 33* 41* 1.05* excl. China & India 18* 25* 1.63* 70* 72* 0.18*

* weighted by population Source: FAOSTAT (http://faostat.fao.org)

the 'livestock revolution' rhetoric and realitythe ‘livestock revolution’: rhetoric...

Documents